open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Balancing - Identifying problems
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 ... : last (47)

Author Topic

Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2009.04.29 04:36:00 - [781]
 

1) Ship fittings

Instead of listing a whole bunch of ships I will just lump it together under the same issue. Many ships have extremely gimped cpu or powergrid which makes seem less useful than other ships in the same class and it looks like its a throw back to an earlier state of the games balance because many of the latest introductions or recently rebalanced ships are much easier to fit with T2 modules whilst still maintaining the compromises you make when fitting them like choosing between tank and firepower while ships that have not been adjusted since introduction are really difficult to fit with their races relevant sized weapons and other utility such as cap injectors or active tanking modules.

2) Close range T2 turret ammo

In most cases utterly useless with to much penalty and to little benefit compared to faction ammo.

3) Micro warp drive Vs Afterburner

One of the stated goals of the big speed re balance was to decrease the gap between MWDs and Afterburners and it didn't really work out because the MWD is still the best choice for most ship classes in pvp, the much greater speed the MWD provides still outweighs the fitting and resource cost even at the risk of the warp scrambler shutting it down (not much different than being double webbed before the web changes) and most in situations where you need speed Afterburners just don't cut the mustard. Possible fixes could be increased Fitting and cap use for Afterburners with much greater speed bonus perhaps somewhere between current figures and MWDs.

Zhal V
Posted - 2009.04.29 08:11:00 - [782]
 

The first 3 that come to mind:

1. Fix Naglfar's damage output. Comparing to the other dreads it is....well below average.
2. Fix rockets
3. Make 0,4 sec system moons able to anchor moon harvesters

Den McConan
Caldari
xX Berserk Squad Xx
Wreck Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.29 09:37:00 - [783]
 

What about "Align To" option in context menu of bookmarks?

Scouteye
Locasta Tactical
Posted - 2009.04.29 11:15:00 - [784]
 

Arazu Dampending, damps got nerfed but the arazu didnt get a boost to bring it back into a specilised role as strong as Jamming, its current bonus is poor.

Jeanine Brown
Posted - 2009.04.29 11:46:00 - [785]
 

Edited by: Jeanine Brown on 29/04/2009 11:47:09
1. Gallente and Minmatar recons need their e-war bonuses tweaked (web and dampener strength bonus added)
2. Naglaflaglatar needs improvements.
3. moonmining should be more randomized.

Khamal Kahn
ROC Deep Space
Posted - 2009.04.29 14:07:00 - [786]
 


1. Tech 2 ammo - close range ammo is garbage with the exception of scorch.

2. Weapon systems - Medium/ Large Blasters need a tracking boost. And some minmatar ships i.e. Naglfar needs a boost with its split weapons.

3. Blackops - fuel bay please.

speedcat
Gallente
Human Liberty Syndicate
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.29 17:32:00 - [787]
 

1) Remove insurance for highsec-gank against Concord rules. There is a reason why Concord kills you for that and for sure you should not get money back from the insurance.
Perhaps make an insurance-system which allows players to start a special insurance-type-corp which special insurance-accounts and the possibility to set a fix margin as income of this companies. Then the leadership of this corp can decide up to which risk they want to insure ships. Of course there has be a riskcalculation behind every pilot similar to the standings-calculation but based upon losses etc.

2) Gallente is no longer a serious pvp race. You nerfed it too much. Current dronesystem is useless (probesystem is much better). Drones in general can be destroyed but are a main part of damage dealing. Blasters are too shortrange, Rails tracking nothing expect of the Mega with the bonus applied and all in all they use same cap as Amarr. And now you want to nerf ECM too, which was the last chance to get rid of longrange UBER -races.

3) Give the Capitalships an overhaul, I remember Wing Commander where the Capitals were a special class of ships mostly untouched by smaller ships. For example introduce a new weapon class with fast auto-targeting Antismallguns similar to Battlestar with more action and delay the first shot of a doomsday so a Titan first comes to the battlefield and then first shoots on the small targets while it's preparing his big gun which only should go against large ships.

speedcat

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.29 17:37:00 - [788]
 

now taking bets on where the hell nozh is. im betting hijacked by somali pirates.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.04.29 17:49:00 - [789]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
now taking bets on where the hell nozh is. im betting hijacked by somali pirates.


If the odds are good enough, I'm willing to throw 1M on quietly investigating things in this thread/forum (simply not posting).

-Liang

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.04.29 22:18:00 - [790]
 

1- artillery and projectile weapons in general (not only at BS level)
2- active tank VS passive tank
3- all the unused ships need a rework (tier1 BCs, lots of tech1 cruiser, etc.)

linedash
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2009.04.29 22:39:00 - [791]
 

For the love of god and all that is holy, please.. Give the retribution a second mid in place of that silly utility high...

Ceptors are no longer scared of double-webbing rapiers.. Web strength inc or a touch more DPS (moar guns?) perhaps?

Sov/Pos Warfare. I'll leave this for the many people who can elocute better than I, but we all know it's broken.

msu320
Posted - 2009.04.30 01:21:00 - [792]
 

In terms of missions, Indeed I agree whole heartedly towards the need to increase the risk vs reward. the average lvl 4 mission gives you about 10 mill in isk, + salvage and loot.

And it's easy to plan ahead for the missions because theres so much repetition.

Its not that hard to make quick changes to the mission codes to allow the servers to decide that for this 1 mission, theres gonna be some mercs dealing heavy EM damage on this mission which the player thinks is gonna be all Serpentis (mean, I know). the other obvious one is use updated AI.

Solid Prefekt
Haven Front
Posted - 2009.04.30 02:26:00 - [793]
 

Originally by: honey bunchetta
Originally by: CrestoftheStars

blasters don't need a boost just learn how to use them, instead of just "approach+F2=web+F3= scramble+F1=guns.


Interesting?.

So if directly approaching and webbing a target to get into blaster optimal and to reduce its transversal so you can get as much of your DPS on it as possable, along with scramming it so it cannot warp are the wrong tactics to use.

Or if their are some other super duper piloting manouvers that are available to them how about you post them instead of just making pointless, vague and stupid referances to them.
I honestly do not understand the blaster problem now that Scramblers turn off the MWD. Just Scramble + Web and your target is slower then post web nerf. The Scramble range is similar to the web so not sure what all the fuss is about. And if you can't get in web range you are going to lose the target anyways so losing the 24pt (for the MWD disabling one) does not seem to be a huge loss.

Poppa Troll
Posted - 2009.04.30 08:06:00 - [794]
 

Originally by: Solid Prefekt
Originally by: honey bunchetta
Originally by: CrestoftheStars

blasters don't need a boost just learn how to use them, instead of just "approach+F2=web+F3= scramble+F1=guns.


Interesting?.

So if directly approaching and webbing a target to get into blaster optimal and to reduce its transversal so you can get as much of your DPS on it as possable, along with scramming it so it cannot warp are the wrong tactics to use.

Or if their are some other super duper piloting manouvers that are available to them how about you post them instead of just making pointless, vague and stupid referances to them.
I honestly do not understand the blaster problem now that Scramblers turn off the MWD. Just Scramble + Web and your target is slower then post web nerf. The Scramble range is similar to the web so not sure what all the fuss is about. And if you can't get in web range you are going to lose the target anyways so losing the 24pt (for the MWD disabling one) does not seem to be a huge loss.


not to debate in this thread, but if you werer running the mwd before while being 90% webbed your sig radius was HUGE, so trackign was a lot easier than no mwd running 60% web

Mortuis Veritatem
Posted - 2009.04.30 08:07:00 - [795]
 

Edited by: Mortuis Veritatem on 30/04/2009 08:09:22
1 You nerfed webs --> Boost Blasters now (they are usless in combination with gallente ships mass/agility)
2 Rebalance Tier 1 vs Tier 2 for battlecruisers (seems like Brutix, Ferox , Cyclone are used only by newbies in Empire )EDIT: and only if this newbie hasn't enough isks
3 Fix jamming mechanic ( After you nerfed dampners they are only ECM used )

Soyemia
Minmatar
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.04.30 10:53:00 - [796]
 

Now watch CCP **** up all the rest of the balancing like the Nagl

Amerilia
Posted - 2009.04.30 12:02:00 - [797]
 

Originally by: Soyemia
Now watch CCP **** up all the rest of the balancing like the Nagl

They just said boost Nag boost nag,- not how to boost it and CCP decided to boost the volley damage,- so now you have to go over to the nag thread and state what you want..

Giddoni
Posted - 2009.04.30 12:58:00 - [798]
 

Hi CCP,

tl;dr: Suggestions in Bold

I suppose it's probably too late to post in this thread, but I'd like to go ahead and mention the things that I'd like to see re-balanced:

1) Hawk
It's hard to find what role this ship was meant for. Currently I use it to solo Level 3s (which is fun!), but it doesn't seem like I could ever use it in PvP. If you fit this ship for tackling, you can't really take advantage of its shield booster bonus, which is the part of this ship that really shines. Add any tackle, and you lose your cap stability. Rockets aren't viable (see below). So the role of this ship then should be a medium/long-range (40+ km) anti-frigate weapon. But then you run into these two problems:
- The DPS is very low compared to other assault frigates. If your target is ABing or using Defender missiles, it's game over. I'm suggesting to add an Assault Ship Skill bonus: -3% Launcher Rate of Fire per level. This would give it DPS in line with a railgun harpy at the same range against a stationary target.
- A full Tech-2 fit isn't possible due to CPU constraints. Even if you leave the 5th high slot empty, you still are relegated to using some Tech-1 components, which doesn't really make sense on an assault frigate. I'd suggest a CPU increase to accommodate the following fit:
[Hawk, Active Tank + Anti-EM Rigs]
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Capacitor Flux Coil II

Cap Recharger II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Small Shield Booster II
1MN Afterburner II

Standard Missile Launcher II
Standard Missile Launcher II
Standard Missile Launcher II
Standard Missile Launcher II
[empty high slot]

Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I

2) Rockets. The explosion velocity is really low, relegating this weapon to the "reprocess" stack. I'd like to see a boost to the explosion velocity to make this a viable weapon.

3) Rigs can't really be used on any Tech 1 ship smaller than a battlecruiser. I like the suggestions that have already been fielded: Make Frigate-sized rigs that are cheap to manufacture but require much more Calibration in order to fit.

Arbiter Reborn
Posted - 2009.04.30 14:50:00 - [799]
 

1. o.o sov mechanics

2. moon mining and distribution of 0.0 welth

3. lowsec, bs rats are nice what about all lvl 4 missions above quality -10 in lowsec hahaha, (im serious)

Photon Ceray
Posted - 2009.04.30 20:54:00 - [800]
 

1 Deimos/blaster ships.

Blasters got nerfed badly with web nerf, blaster ships are rather useless and especially the Deimos, this ship needs proper bonuses, give it a speed boost to reach something before it warps off or kites it.

2- Sov mechanics, don't know how, but they need rework imo.

3- T2 ammo is mostly crap, same dps as faction ammo only more cap usage, half the tracking and other stuff.

Roland 99
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.04.30 21:20:00 - [801]
 

Edited by: Roland 99 on 30/04/2009 21:28:36
Edited by: Roland 99 on 30/04/2009 21:27:51
Edited by: Roland 99 on 30/04/2009 21:27:16
1. Large Projectile Turrets

Large Projectile Turrets are absolutely HORRIBLE compared to lasers or rails in every manner. Crappy range, horrid tracking, and Insufficient alpha.

In fact, the alpha on large artilleries has been crap since the 15% ship HP buff way back and I don't even want to talk about trimarks.

Either make the alpha on 1400's mean something again, or give them competitive range/tracking.

2. T2 High damage Ammo

100% Useless. Remove the drawbacks and/or completely redesign

3. Tempest/Maelstrom

The tempest is the only fleet battleship that cant handle a DD without completely destroying the setup or spending 60 mil in rigs. It's range is the worst, it's alpha is meaningless with BS'es running around with 30K armor, it's tracking will not keep up with a cruiser at 150K if he's moving.

First the 15% HP buff really stung the tempest, but it still was somewhat viable. Then, the addition of trimarks made it's alpha useless in fleets. Then scripting came along. Because the artilleries really needed both tracking and range from mods to be effective scripting nerfed the tempest into uselessness.

The Maelstrom's bonus is completely lost in a fleet configuration because of scripting and having to use 2 SB's and 2 TC's just to be able to lock and hit out at fleet ranges. It's only use currently is an expensive angel ratter.

CCP you will find a lot of former minmatar pilots in here who trained for apocs because the tempest really does suck that bad.

paddytehpyro
Dark-Rising
Posted - 2009.04.30 22:39:00 - [802]
 

1. Rockets. They are useless pretty much. Far too low DPS for a "Close range" weapon.
2. The Hawk. Again...near useless. Could be fixed by increasing CPU I guess or just fixing rockets
3. Torpedoes. Not really terrible but still...a slightly higher explosion velocity would be nice to make a torp raven viable.

Onizuka GTO
Caldari
Macross crp.
Posted - 2009.05.01 08:20:00 - [803]
 

Edited by: Onizuka GTO on 01/05/2009 08:23:03
Originally by: paddytehpyro

3. Torpedoes. Not really terrible but still...a slightly higher explosion velocity would be nice to make a torp raven viable.


Hey, if the "generous" torpedoes velocity bonus on the stealth bomber is still not so "viable", what's the point of upping the it on the raven? it's not going to make much of a difference!
Rolling Eyes


But i agree about the rockets, I have not met a single person who use rockets....not even for PvE.

They really need to increase the capacity and RoF for rocket launchers, but make the reload longer to compensate.

The damage to T2 and fraction ammo should also have the damage output slightly tweaked up.



Austin Fleck
Posted - 2009.05.01 15:05:00 - [804]
 

1. I would like to see the little link to market value when i hit modify order--they have it for when you hit sell item (little magnifying glass icon).

2. T2 projectile ammo has to severe of penalties.

3. The gate and station guns in low sec are too easily tanked. Make them go after multiple targets too please. The way things are now low sec is more dangerous than 0.0.

sweikewa
Posted - 2009.05.01 17:21:00 - [805]
 

1. LEAVE lvl 4 alone. it's the only high sec way to make money. if it's so freaking good why don't you do them..
In low sec, true sec you got BS'spawns ( oficer drops) xxkk a drop
cosmic anomalies(radar sites, nice revenus after short time),high end ores, POS MOON mining ( very good profit..), Roqal, ability to make lvl 5 witch capital ships and so one.... So dont' say it's profitable as lvl 4 high sec...
2. Missille nerf was overballanced bs with cruises shooting at rat making full speed makes 50-70 % of its' max dmg.. best way to tank missiles: just fly with full speed ...
3. Personal POS launching. I wat to have an abbility to launch my own private control tower.. I don't think EVE is pro comunistic...


Creat Posudol
Gallente
Eve Dragons
Imperial Crimson Legion
Posted - 2009.05.01 17:36:00 - [806]
 

Edited by: Creat Posudol on 01/05/2009 23:29:21
Edited by: Creat Posudol on 01/05/2009 21:24:46
Haven't read completely through (on page 4 now), probably will do that though and might edit this post after I have.

Level 4 Missions (or rather: loot drop in general)
Not the amount reward but the type of reward(s), since this has a huge impact on the entire economy by injecting minerals.
Possible fixes (it's a higly complex issue though) include replacing drops (all NPCs, not just Level 4 mission NPCs) with BPCs, maybe not only 1-run-BPCs but reducing drop chance and allow multirun BPCs (with various run counts, totaling the same amout in the end). Since this substantially reduces the value of the loot (most loot modules up to meta 2 or 3 are obviously worth less than their reprocessed minerals), increase mission rewards to compensate for that (they're much too low anyway, basically nobody even cares about them compared to loot/bounty/salvage).
I do realize though that this puts kind of a dent in the immersion, since all of a sudden NPCs don't leave behind modules they used but rather BPCs for those... kinda weird I admit.
Remove meta-0 drops completely, they should be provided by the player economy and the BPOs are seeded nicely!

I make my ISK with a combination of Level 4s, Industry (production/invention) and Market activities (including buying and then reprocessing typical mission loot modules), so this affects me in many ways.

edits:

Tier 3 Frigate
Gallente doesn't have a useful frigate here, this is especially sad since the faction frigate is based on it. Just please make the Tristan useable somehow, right now it's worse than the Incursus in pretty much every single way possible...

Selecting BS based on Tier for T2 upgrade
There is no real reason to use the (antiquated) tier system for picking BS for T2. One of the most prominent examples I can think of is the Kronos. As the Gallente Marauder it's based on the (PVP oriented) Megathron, which is barely used in PvE. So why would anyone creating such a ship not pick the Dominix for this role? It's better for the role in most regards, one reason being it doesn't need (much) ammo as it's a drone boat, but there are quite a few other concerns. On the other hand as a Black Ops basis the Megathron would've probably served much better than the Dominix. I realize that it's unlike this can be undone without a major overhaul, as a Gallente pilot this is still very frustrating!

Lord Vyper
Caldari
Beyond Evil and Good
Posted - 2009.05.01 17:41:00 - [807]
 

1) Railguns need a small dps increase considering how much cap you use.

2) Caldari powergrids need an increase to make active tanking more viable. Nighthawk for example

3) EW drones, ECM is the only good option atm. The others need to be brought up to par.

Joshua Cy
Posted - 2009.05.01 20:46:00 - [808]
 

What I see as needing balance in EVE

1) The first thing that needs balance is…. Balance. Do you remember the anti-speed buff? No? How about the anti-missile buff? No, what you remember is the speed Nerf and the missile Nerf. When “balancing” is done, its done by means of nerfs more often than by buffs. Balance is out of balance.

Issue: When re-balancing is done, do an equal amount of nerfs and buffs.

2) Coding effort is un-balanced. The entire time I have played this game, I have gotten crashes, lockups, disconnects, and weird graphics artifacts. Also there are things in the game most everyone sees as “broken” like bounties, defender missiles, or the “pay to grief” war dec system. Each update I hope that this time things will be fixed. No, just more features added. I’ve heard that CCP does not even have plans to fix some things. Instead we get new ships and systems, while basic components of the game lie rotting.

Issue: Coding effort should be balanced between new features and fixing problems.

3) The biggest un-balance in the game stems from a fundamental lack of understanding between two groups: Those who like PvP, and those who do not. First, an attempt to increase that understanding. You may ask, “Why do some not like PvP?” I can only speak for myself and report on what I learn from others. The reason I do not like PvP is I do not get “The Rush”. That burst of adrenalin that comes from PvP to some feels good, maybe very good, and is worth risking their entire wallet to get. They get the rush. For me that burst leaves me feeling ill for the rest of the day EVEN WHEN I WIN. I do not play games to feel ill. Based on talks to other players, it seems that getting the rush and liking PvP are strongly related. Why do some get or not get the rush? I researched this, and according to Dr. Drew Pinsky it’s genetic. We are born that way. Please do not hate someone for the way they are born.

At present the game seems to be built around forcing these two groups together. But due to a fundamental genetic difference, they will not get together. Instead the two groups need to respect each other. I think the game should be structured to give each group more of what it wants without forcing them together.

Issue: The game has too much content that tries to force PvPers and nonPvPers together; more content geared to the likes of each group is needed.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2009.05.02 02:19:00 - [809]
 

Edited by: Tres Farmer on 02/05/2009 02:35:43
.
1) undocking in a system is unbalanced compared to jumping into a system
explanation see here: Why is undocking more dangerous than jumping...?
If I would - up on undocking - end in the same situation I end up jumping into a system I wouldn't complain. But when I apply current undocking-mechanics to jumping into another system, I get this:
  • you always appear in the same spot at the gate

  • you decloak instantaneous

  • you wouldn't be allowed to jump back for ~20 secs
Who in his right mind would still travel around in low/null under such conditions? This mechanic simply would destroy most of travel down there..


2) T2 Ammo
enough posted about this

3) High Sec Kill Mission Loot
The NPC should drop named T1 BPC if at all and no more T1 Modules, this will remove pressure on medium minerals and give starting producers a chance in the field of T1 items.. keep isk-payment and bounty as is to prevent deflation.

PS: I hope this thread is already checked by you, Nozh *crosses fingers*

Hawk Firestorm
Posted - 2009.05.02 06:28:00 - [810]
 

Edited by: Hawk Firestorm on 02/05/2009 06:52:44
Edited by: Hawk Firestorm on 02/05/2009 06:39:04
1. The economy, NPC corps should play a active role in regulating the market, both selling and buying goods to remove them from game, and more importantly for you off the database, and to sell goods on Volume that stops the playerbase from manipulating the market causing hyper inflation without loosing their shirts trying to do so.

Players operating between these 'safety valves', and keeping the economy on a steady even keel, regardless of population or activety.

2. Pricing and Manufacture of T2+ items especially ships that utterly preclude their use due to the insane risk involved because of pricing that makes them entirely redundant beign in game in the first place for anything more than missioning or being hanger orniments, rather than the user having access to content appropriate for where they are in eve.

3. BLOB warfare, Super corps/Alliances that have pushed the weak design elements of eve past the brink and degraded the gamplay especially fleet warfare, one reason being while the population of eve has increased over 10 fold the universe hasn't, a MASSIVE expansion of eve colonisable space to encourage smaller corps and alliances and therefore gang sizes back to a sensible level.

Perhaps even opening up new galaxies to explore and communities to empire build in, and take advantage of some human traits like being somewhat lazy and not wanting to travel over huge distances to fight which also helps mitigate gang/territory size.

Huge fleet battles are a great idea unfortunately CCP hasn't improved the core design elements of eve to suit the high population to allow it and still keep the quality of the gameplay, you've just thrown hardware and content at it rather than improving the core design elements on a truely fundemental level, from how a player moves around in eve, fights and earns cash right down to they fight and operate in a fight and the control method and UI.

A fundemental change in approach to your developement process that improves not only the content but the game itself and what your bolting it on to.

I'm sorry but content aside I'd have the eve of 03-04 back in a heartbeat gameplay wise, in many many instances it was the introduction of poorly designed content that's created many of the problems in eve in the first place rather than actually improving the game itself on a core level.

Perhaps using the introduction of new Tech levels to phase out bad design elements out of the game, not to mention the database. T3 are probably the most original approach to a core element ie the player and his ship you've ever done, sadly you fluffed it by making them wholey impractical to use at 4bill each which brings me back to point 1 & 2.


Pages: first : previous : ... 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 ... : last (47)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only